Many Republicans did not like Ron Paul. But they all wanted to know how he could raise millions of dollars in a 24-hour period. They wanted to know why he drew the largest and most enthusiastic crowds. Republicans eager to attract young people wondered how Paul did it—in droves. The most diverse Republican rallies were always Paul’s. The Republican candidate with the highest support among independents and Democrats was always Paul. Every election, Republicans grasp at how to grow their base. In the last two presidential elections, Paul broke through barriers other Republicans can’t dent. One million people voted for him in 2008. That number doubled to 2 million in 2012. Paul and other libertarians see tribal politics as passé. When it comes to “us vs. them”—libertarians won’t stand for that crap. They hate the state, but that’s where their vitriol ends.

During both of his presidential campaigns, Paul was haunted by racist material that appeared in newsletters he had published earlier in his career. But the candidate I came to know was no racist. Former staffers told me that Paul was distraught when he learned what had been published under his name. When parts of the South were still desegregating in the early 1970s, Paul, a Texas obstetrician, delivered a biracial couple’s stillborn child after other doctors had turned them away out of prejudice, the child’s father said in a super PAC-funded ad released in 2011. Paul told them not to worry about the bill.

The diverse group of young people Ron and Rand Paul have managed to mobilize represents the best hope for the Republican Party. If the GOP wants to attract more minorities, independents and young voters, it is libertarian-Republicans who can lead the way.

But there’s another faction in the GOP that’s determined to put a stop to the Pauls’ small-government revolution.

***

When Senator McCain was asked in July whom he would choose in a hypothetical 2016 match-up between Rand Paul and Hillary Clinton, he said it would be a “tough choice.”

A tough choice?

It wasn’t long ago that Sean Hannity’s radio program began each day as the “Stop Hillary Express,” rallying conservatives to agree on at least one point: They had to stop the Clinton machine from getting anywhere near the White House. Again.

So why would the 2008 Republican nominee have a hard time deciding how to vote if the choices were Republican Paul and Democrat Clinton?

Because McCain fears libertarians more than he fears Democrats. As McCain said in April, “I feel that I have more in common on foreign policy with President Obama than I do with some in my party.” And he does.

Neoconservatives like McCain insist that we must intervene in Syria without congressional approval. They defend government spying on American citizens with each new revelation of overreach; when it comes to expanding executive power to “keep us safe,” they are always in favor of more government.

This neoconservative worldview is falling out of favor. Polls on a possible Syria intervention showed an overwhelming opposition across the political spectrum. Polls on the NSA surveillance programs show Americans worry more about the agency violating their privacy than failing to do enough to monitor terrorists. As libertarian-conservatism continues to gain traction, neoconservatives see a threat to their hold on the party.

Back in 2010, when Rand Paul achieved a double-digit lead over his primary opponent, Trey Grayson, in his Senate race, the neocons raised an alarm. Cesar Conda, a former aide to Dick Cheney, sent an email to a group of prominent neocons: “Rand Paul is NOT one of us,” he warned. “It is our hope that you can help us get the word out about Rand Paul’s troubling and dangerous views on foreign policy.”

Cheney himself would later endorse Grayson. It was one of only two races the former vice president weighed in on that year. Said Cheney: “I’m a lifelong conservative, and I can tell the real thing when I see it.”

Cheney’s endorsement wasn’t enough to stop Rand Paul and secure the seat for Grayson. So what is the “real thing” conservative—whom Cheney felt would represent the GOP so much better than the interloper Rand Paul—doing now?

After the Free Beacon story broke, I felt as though nearly everything I cared about had been taken away.

Even worse than losing my job was the fact that the stupid things I’d said gave ammunition to Rand Paul’s enemies.

In September, Frank Rich wrote about my controversy in New York magazine, noting that former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson had “argued that Paul’s harboring of the Southern Avenger illustrates why it is ‘impossible for Rand Paul to join the Republican mainstream.”

Photo courtesy of Jack Hunter

“That Gerson would hypocritically single out Paul for banishment in a party harboring so many southern avengers,” Rich wrote, “is an indication of just how panicked the old GOP gatekeepers are by his success.”

Instead of arguing that there’s no room in the GOP for Rand Paul, the Republican establishment should look at how he can lead the way in creating a broader, more diverse coalition of conservatives—including more minorities.

Liberals like Chris Matthews are absurd when they suggest that every disagreement with President Obama is somehow racist. But too many Republicans have dismissed the idea that racism is actually a problem. When I was Rand Paul’s social-media director, I noticed that whenever my boss would make a statement about racial injustice in our legal system, some conservatives bristled at the suggestion that our government was somehow mistreating African-Americans. The same conservatives who say they believe government treats everyone badly were not willing to see how that was true for black Americans. They either don’t see it or don’t want to see it.

I used not to see it. For that, I am very sorry. If Republicans are going to make inroads with minority voters, they had better open their eyes too.

Libertarian Republicans are changing minds and changing the party. They changed me.